An excellent read for the Anti-URM peeps (or anyone else)

[Trismegistus4]

Certain groups do not perform as well as others on IQ -and other standardized- tests. Blacks -and other ethnic minorities- are among those groups.

You seem to believe that some innate genetic attribute causes this. Women used to underperform too as a group. Did this mean women were intrinsically dumber than men? No. It means they had little access to education, and their socioeconomic status was much lower than that of men. Measures were taken, and women do not underperform anymore.

You want blacks to score higher on the SAT and the MCAT? Improve the social security net and access to education. Grant them better access to college and professional schools (even if it means some highly favored minorities are prejudiced against in the short run).

It's already been done. Blacks from higher socioeconomic backgrounds still do worse than whites from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Blacks adopted and raised by white parents do worse than whites adopted and raised by black parents.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheUPSIDEdown]

Just thought I'd round up all the covert/overt racist comments to save everybody time. Educate yourselves and open your minds. Gain perspective. I know how hard it is to be caucasian or asian in this country. I don't know how you do it.

It's losers like this that make people with real ideas and strong alternatives shy away in fear that some small minded liberal with the inability to interpret reality will label them as a racist. And it's certainly not limited to medicine. If you don't agree with status quo in this country, you're a racist.

 

[SabaChampion]

It's already been done. Blacks from higher socioeconomic backgrounds still do worse than whites from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Blacks adopted and raised by white parents do worse than whites adopted and raised by black parents.

It's really not even a debatable issue. But they are not interested in the truth.

 

[Doudline]

It's already been done. Blacks from higher socioeconomic backgrounds still do worse than whites from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Blacks adopted and raised by white parents do worse than whites adopted and raised by black parents.

Do you deny that odds have improved, and thus that these policies are effective, or are you simply stating that parity has not been achieved?

 

[StudyLater]

Just thought I'd round up all the covert/overt racist comments to save everybody time. Educate yourselves and open your minds. Gain perspective. I know how hard it is to be caucasian or asian in this country. I don't know how you do it.

It's not hard having less or more of a certain pigment in your skin.

It's hard suffering due to lack of funds, lack of social/familial support (though it depends on the type of person you are), lack of childhood education (which I believe is illegal in some states?), etc. It's not hard to "be colored." It's hard to experience things a lot of colored people experience.

 

[Spector1]

Let's not feed the trolls, guys.

You post an article on race and then you get upset when people post opinions that you disagree with. How civil.

 

[ZedsDed]

Just thought I'd round up all the covert/overt racist comments to save everybody time. Educate yourselves and open your minds. Gain perspective. I know how hard it is to be caucasian or asian in this country. I don't know how you do it.

I suspect you and I are largely in agreement on policy. But why even engage the other side (which is exactly what you did in the title) if you are just going to immediately shut down debate as soon as they raise objections?

 

[StudyLater]

I suspect you and I are largely in agreement on policy. But why even engage the other side (which is exactly what you did in the title) if you are just going to immediately shut down debate as soon as they raise objections?

Because everyone is a racist bigot and that's just how I feel about it.

/idioticthread

 

[steeeeveo]

I posted something positive and you guys turned it into something negative. Bravo.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

But is this UIM business really always about race? FWIW some Asians are considered UIM, while some Hispanics are not. It seems that these threads often morph into a debate about the plight of African-Americans, which is a relevant topic, but far from all-encompassing when it comes to UIM admissions.

 

[Remixism]

In my opinion, you guys all miss the point. We keep focusing on the criteria by which people should or should not "deserve" to be doctors, without considering the patients at all.

Becoming a physician is not some entitlement "earned" by having X GPA and Y MCAT. It is a privilege that some of us are lucky enough to be chosen for. Let's be real, when it comes to actually succeeding as a care giver the scores aren't very important. Medicine is really not that intellectually complex - what it requires is hard work and dedication.

But all that is beside the point. What matters, in my opinion, is not who deserves to be a doctor but rather, who the patients deserve to have as their doctor. Let's take the focus off of us, completely, because in healthcare all that should matter is the patients. And the fact of the matter is, a sizable portion of our country is (by definition) of lower socioeconomic status. Those of similar economic statuses, by virtue of shared experience, will generally relate better to each other, which in turn translates to better care. And finally, it's no secret that The lower socioeconomic class, for some largely systemic reasons, has higher proportions of Blacks and Hispanics.

Are patients of lower social economic status, then, not entitled to the same quality of care as the rest of us?

 

[BurghMed]

In my opinion, you guys all miss the point. We keep focusing on the criteria by which people should or should not "deserve" to be doctors, without considering the patients at all.

Becoming a physician is not some entitlement "earned" by having X GPA and Y MCAT. It is a privilege that some of us are lucky enough to be chosen for. Let's be real, when it comes to actually succeeding as a care giver the scores aren't very important. Medicine is really not that intellectually complex - what it requires is hard work and dedication.

But all that is beside the point. What matters, in my opinion, is not who deserves to be a doctor but rather, who the patients deserve to have as their doctor. Let's take the focus off of us, completely, because in healthcare all that should matter is the patients. And the fact of the matter is, a sizable portion of our country is (by definition) of lower socioeconomic status. Those of similar economic statuses, by virtue of shared experience, will generally relate better to each other, which in turn translates to better care. And finally, it's no secret that The lower socioeconomic class, for some largely systemic reasons, has higher proportions of Blacks and Hispanics.

Are patients of lower social economic status, then, not entitled to the same quality of care as the rest of us?

All those who disagree with URM status in the medical application process believe that those of lower socio-economic status are entitled to worse care?

This is what you think?

 

[ZedsDed]

In my opinion, you guys all miss the point. We keep focusing on the criteria by which people should or should not "deserve" to be doctors, without considering the patients at all.

Becoming a physician is not some entitlement "earned" by having X GPA and Y MCAT. It is a privilege that some of us are lucky enough to be chosen for. Let's be real, when it comes to actually succeeding as a care giver the scores aren't very important. Medicine is really not that intellectually complex - what it requires is hard work and dedication.

But all that is beside the point. What matters, in my opinion, is not who deserves to be a doctor but rather, who the patients deserve to have as their doctor. Let's take the focus off of us, completely, because in healthcare all that should matter is the patients. And the fact of the matter is, a sizable portion of our country is (by definition) of lower socioeconomic status. Those of similar economic statuses, by virtue of shared experience, will generally relate better to each other, which in turn translates to better care. And finally, it's no secret that The lower socioeconomic class, for some largely systemic reasons, has higher proportions of Blacks and Hispanics.

Are patients of lower social economic status, then, not entitled to the same quality of care as the rest of us?

Um, I think this is the reason most of us support taking action on behalf of URMs in regards to med school admission.

 

[ZedsDed]

All those who disagree with URM status in the medical application process believe that those of lower socio-economic status are entitled to worse care?

This is what you think?

That part I disagree with

 

[whatsupdr]

Why cant admissions just be race blind? Why cant it be strictly by merit? I dont understand why there are "ethnic" university's in this day and age. If there was a university that only admitted whites then they would be called racists. Everyone deserves the same chance. There are plenty of white families with single parents with low incomes who suffer just to put food on the table..to pay rent. Do they get into med school easier because of that? I dont think so. I feel it should race blind.

 

[Remixism]

All those who disagree with URM status in the medical application process believe that those of lower socio-economic status are entitled to worse care?

This is what you think?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can't agree with the statement that everyone is entitled to quality care (which I would imagine almost everyone does) without also agreeing that we need affirmative action, following from my argument.

 

[ZedsDed]

Why cant admissions just be race blind? Why cant it be strictly by merit? I dont understand why there are "ethnic" university's in this day and age. If there was a university that only admitted whites then they would be called racists. Everyone deserves the same chance. There are plenty of white families with single parents with low incomes who suffer just to put food on the table..to pay rent. Do they get into med school easier because of that? I dont think so. I feel it should race blind.

Med school AA is different from college admissions AA. We, as a society, need doctors to serve in communities that aren't getting enough care. URMs historically are the only ones willing to work in these communities, often at a financial loss. The policy doesn't exist to benefit individual applicants.

 

[steeeeveo]

I suspect you and I are largely in agreement on policy. But why even engage the other side (which is exactly what you did in the title) if you are just going to immediately shut down debate as soon as they raise objections?

I did say it was for anyone + anti-URM people. Still, a good question. The reason is that I don't think anyone actually read the article. People are just posting their thoughts without even considering what was said in the article. I know it's kind of long, but sheesh.

Someone posted this earlier, but many of you are making this mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

 

[StudyLater]

Why cant admissions just be race blind? Why cant it be strictly by merit?

Because apparently according to several important studies if I'm a POC I don't trust anyone lacking significant amounts of melanin to give me proper medical care.

 

[Remixism]

Also, consider our growing lack of primary care doctors, particularly in underserved areas. Would accepting a higher proportion of people from affluent, non-underserved areas (where test scores are categorically higher) alleviate or exacerbate this problem? I'll admit I don't have the data to back this up, so I could be wrong, but I'd imagine that those who grew up in those underserved areas would be more likely to want to give back to those same communities, than those who have never experienced them firsthand.

 

[StudyLater]

Also, consider our growing lack of primary care doctors, particularly in underserved areas. Would accepting a higher proportion of people from affluent, non-underserved areas (where test scores are categorically higher) alleviate or exacerbate this problem?

Well, if a shortage is the problem, and you add more docs (no matter their background), then yeah that would solve the stated problem.

But maybe you were referring to a lack of docs that can relate to patients?

 

[Remixism]

Well, if a shortage is the problem, and you add more docs (no matter their background), then yeah that would solve the stated problem.

But maybe you were referring to a lack of docs that can relate to patients?

Sorry, I updated my last post while you were writing yours so I apologize if this reply is moot. Yes, categorically training more doctors would alleviate the problem. However this is not yet happening (well it is but not nearly fast enough), and on top of that, your proposal would alleviate it at a much slower rate than if we picked doctors who specifically evinced commitment to those communities. Students with more competitive test scores are more likely to choose competitive specialties, by definition (and those are not the specialities that are most lacking in the underserved areas).

 

[BurghMed]

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can't agree with the statement that everyone is entitled to quality care (which I would imagine almost everyone does) without also agreeing that we need affirmative action, following from my argument.

The sad reality is that many schools accept wealthy URMs simply because of their appearance. I think it needs to be clear that there are people of all different ethnicities who are poor (white included, look at much of rural America). Many would be surprised, or not, to see that a lot of those who come from poor backgrounds of all races end up trying to go into elite subspecialities instead of taking a 50% pay cut out of the goodness of their heart.

 

[StudyLater]

Sorry, I updated my last post while you were writing yours so I apologize if this reply is moot. Yes, categorically training more doctors would alleviate the problem. However this is not yet happening (well it is but not nearly fast enough), and on top of that, your proposal would alleviate it at a much slower rate than if we picked doctors who specifically evinced commitment to those communities. Students with more competitive test scores are more likely to choose competitive specialties, by definition (and those are not the specialities that are most lacking in the underserved areas).

I don't disagree.

Most people don't become academically competitive to benefit the collective. Look out for numero uno.

 

[TheUPSIDEdown]

We, as a society, need doctors to serve in communities that aren't getting enough care. URMs historically are the only ones willing to work in this communities, often at a financial loss. The policy doesn't exist to benefit individual applicants.

You're absolutely right. But guess what, the reality is: it does "benefit" a certain demographic and marginalizes another regardless of the original non-discriminatory intention; which by the way, it is 100% intentional at institutions for the sake of political correctness and inclusiveness. That's why I question it and think there is a better way to offer this "benefit." I don't deny that the benefit is necessary, but I refuse to accept that the best way is to hand it out based on skin color.

 

[StudyLater]

You're absolutely right. But guess what, the reality is: it does "benefit" a certain demographic and marginalizes another regardless of the original non-discriminatory intention; which by the way, it is 100% intentional at institutions for the sake of political correctness and inclusiveness. That's why I question it and think there is a better way to offer this "benefit." I don't deny that the benefit is necessary, but I refuse to accept that the best way is to hand it out based on skin color.

Increase reimbursements by 20% for docs working in underserved communities.

Hey look, I just solved the problem.

 

[ZedsDed]

Increase reimbursements by 20% for docs working in underserved communities.

Hey look, I just solved the problem.

Murica' doesn't believe in such socialist nonsense. /s

 

[dragoniterulesmylife]

I'm all for diversity, but if you take a look at admission statistics for each standardized test bucket at the top universities, you'll see that for every applicant in the highest score buckets, asians have the lowest percentage of admittance. And this metric is statistically significant when compared to admissions for white people. The same holds true for the top jobs in finance and other professional careers.
And they continue to get thrown under the bus by pervasive stereotypes that are un-grounded in truth. It really is a destruction of Asian-American culture and forced-assimilation in my opinion.
Take a look at management positions in industry as well. All white people. There is inherent bias because white people are selecting for white people, and in the process discriminating against similarly qualified people from different ethnicities.
I think that leeway should be given to African-Americans and Hispanics because of all the horrific crap that white people have done in the past, but it should be at the "cost" of white applicants, not Asian.
When an ethnicity "succeeds" (kind of like how Asian people tend to be financially well off, more so than blacks and Hispanics), they are once again discriminated against as a mechanism of "opportunity control".
Also, while giving URMs an advantage is certainly a good start, what really needs to be done is tackling issues of education at the k-12 level, and putting resources into providing equal education opportunities for the younger generation of students.

 

[BurghMed]

I'm all for diversity, but if you take a look at admission statistics for each standardized test bucket at the top universities, you'll see that for every applicant in the highest score buckets, asians have the lowest percentage of admittance. And this metric is statistically significant when compared to admissions for white people. The same holds true for the top jobs in finance and other professional careers.
And they continue to get thrown under the bus by pervasive stereotypes that are un-grounded in truth. It really is a destruction of Asian-American culture and forced-assimilation in my opinion.
Take a look at management positions in industry as well. All white people. There is inherent bias because white people are selecting for white people, and in the process discriminating against similarly qualified people from different ethnicities.
I think that leeway should be given to African-Americans and Hispanics because of all the horrific crap that white people have done in the past, but it should be at the "cost" of white applicants, not Asian.
When an ethnicity "succeeds" (kind of like how Asian people tend to be financially well off, more so than blacks and Hispanics), they are once again discriminated against as a mechanism of "opportunity control".
Also, while giving URMs an advantage is certainly a good start, what really needs to be done is tackling issues of education at the k-12 level, and putting resources into providing equal education opportunities for the younger generation of students.

You're so right! Penalize a child who had nothing to do with all the "horrible crap that white people have done in the past." Genius!

 

[dragoniterulesmylife]

To add some numbers to my argument:

Say, as an example:

we have the following % of applicants:

10% black
10% hispanic
50% white
30% asian

Assuming we have equal qualifications across race (which is not true; again we have a mirroring of socio-economic conditions that applicants grew up in, which tends to favor whites and asians), the ideal % of admissions, under a scheme that supports (and should continue supporting) URM advantage is:

15% black
15% hispanic
40% white
30% asian

Right now, I feel like what's happening is:

15% black
15% hispanic
50% white
20% asian

Obviously, in this hypothetical scenario, Asians would be a massively over-represented minority when compared to the patient population. But, in terms of % of original applicants? Really, it's not that ludicrous. And in case anyone brings up the argument that doctors should be culturally assimilated, let me assure you that as long as an equal % in every category grew up in America and are not completely isolated growing up, they will beyond a doubt be culturally assimilated. This, imo, is just another example of a negative stereotype that consistently makes the rounds.

 

[dragoniterulesmylife]

You're so right! Penalize a child who had nothing to do with all the "horrible crap that white people have done in the past." Genius!

Unfortunately, the number of professional positions in America is limited. So, to give benefit to URMs (which I think is well needed), someone must take the hit. It's not a matter of blame or penalization (although in actuality, it is penalization), more so of unfortunate necessity.

 

[WingedOx]

You're so right! Penalize a child who had nothing to do with all the "horrible crap that white people have done in the past." Genius!

wait, you think white people are "penalized" by AA? Jesus...

And given the way educational policy and allocation of educational resources is going in this country, you'd have to wear blinders to think that the causes of the problem is simply "in the past"

 

[JamesMarch]

I posted something positive and you guys turned it into something negative. Bravo.

No. you pointed fingers and cried racism when there was no racism in my post. You're part of the reason why nobody can often seriously discuss these issues from a different perspective and look at them from a different angle.

 

[WingedOx]

The sad reality is that many schools accept wealthy URMs simply because of their appearance.

And yet in America in 2015, for better or worse, that "appearance" creates its own set of experiences.

 

[BurghMed]

wait, you think white people are "penalized" by AA? Jesus...

And given the way educational policy and allocation of educational resources is going in this country, you'd have to wear blinders to think that the causes of the problem is simply "in the past"

ahh and I so desperately wanted to avoid jumping into this thread, but it was too tempting...

It would be ignorant of me to suggest that there is equal opportunity for all, or even that everyone is treated equally. If you want to throw up a gif to prove your point, that's just fine. However, perhaps you're not familiar with the data as it only pertains to the admissions game. If you want to speak about society at large, as you clearly do by making a point about James Blake's experience, then maybe another thread is more appropriate for you.

Asians are discriminated more in the medical school admissions process than any other race. Not trying to be facetious, just look at the data:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...with-your-cgpa-and-mcat.888650/#post-12107997

If you want to have a conversation about whether white people who are born tomorrow are placed at an inherent advantage over other, specific minority groups, that's not something people are denying. However, if you are going to "correct" this situation by positively discriminating against someone who is of equal or better academic merit and then deny that it's something that's happening, then you're just not looking at the facts. Keeping all else equal, a caucasian has a better chance than an asian in getting in (a fact), and an individual of african-american (or hispanic) descent has a better chance than a caucasian of getting in (a fact).

 

[Pusheen]

On another note, just the title of this thread is stupid. Calling people who don't support lower admissions standards for URM's, for whatever reason, "anti-URM'' and racist is just straight up false and unnecessary. The amount of unnecessary accusation and finger pointing from the OP at people who are simply expressing a different opinion is nauseating.
And then of course we are the intolerant ones

 

[PREMEDitated22]

Lol.

 

[Seth Joo]

I'm all for diversity, but if you take a look at admission statistics for each standardized test bucket at the top universities, you'll see that for every applicant in the highest score buckets, asians have the lowest percentage of admittance. And this metric is statistically significant when compared to admissions for white people. The same holds true for the top jobs in finance and other professional careers.
And they continue to get thrown under the bus by pervasive stereotypes that are un-grounded in truth. It really is a destruction of Asian-American culture and forced-assimilation in my opinion.
Take a look at management positions in industry as well. All white people. There is inherent bias because white people are selecting for white people, and in the process discriminating against similarly qualified people from different ethnicities.
I think that leeway should be given to African-Americans and Hispanics because of all the horrific crap that white people have done in the past, but it should be at the "cost" of white applicants, not Asian.
When an ethnicity "succeeds" (kind of like how Asian people tend to be financially well off, more so than blacks and Hispanics), they are once again discriminated against as a mechanism of "opportunity control".
Also, while giving URMs an advantage is certainly a good start, what really needs to be done is tackling issues of education at the k-12 level, and putting resources into providing equal education opportunities for the younger generation of students.

I know a lot of Asian immigrant kids moving back to their parent's countries because of better opportunities in the old country. The US is not the same country it used to be, many Asians often do not even see themselves as Americans, and often have a dual identity, many see no problem with it given how different most Asian cultures are to American culture which is heavily European based.

You got a few token minorities at some big US companies, but that is about it, most managers are white. Back home in Japan, just about everyone in management is Japanese. The lone exception is Nissan, Nissan is owned by Renault, and its CEO is a Brazilian whose parents are immigrants from Lebanon, apparently he immigrated himself to France. Interesting story how this person moved around the world for his career, and he runs Japan's third largest auto maker and France's second largest auto company.

 

[Cookie04]

 

[steeeeveo]

On another note, just the title of this thread is stupid. Calling people who don't support lower admissions standards for URM's, for whatever reason, "anti-URM'' and racist is just straight up false and unnecessary. The amount of unnecessary accusation and finger pointing from the OP at people who are simply expressing a different opinion is nauseating.
And then of course we are the intolerant ones

I'll bite.

I don't know if you can be more hypocritical. What is stupid about my title? If you don't support something, you're an anti-whatever. So if you're against URM policy, then you're anti-URM. Difficult concept. It's true and totally necessary. I thought the article could help people like you understand the plight of URM in this country. I don't mind someone expressing a different opinion. In fact, I welcome a cogent argument (lol) because I have yet to hear one. The problem lies when people have racist (yes, racist) comments and add nothing to the conversation.

Many of us have or will have science degrees, and some argue that some races are more intelligent than others. It's frightening, really.

What's worse is that I have yet to see one person in this thread comment on the article. Every person who is anti-URM hasn't addressed a single thing in the article. The one person who even gave the slightest hint that he/she read the article said they won't comment on it because they won't divide America. That was a real thing that was said. This means that there is not an argument to be had, and that this is in fact an excellent and informative article.

 

[fancymylotus]

If only my advisor in undergrad had sent my parents letters about my performance on construction paper....sigh.

 

[ZedsDed]

If only my advisor in undergrad had sent my parents letters about my performance on construction paper....sigh.

I'm trying really hard to understand the joke but

 

[fancymylotus]

I'm trying really hard to understand the joke but

Did you read the article? The advisor was doing that, in the article.

 

[ZedsDed]

Did you read the article? The advisor was doing that, in the article.

Yeah but I totally forgot about it lol. As OP said none of the opponents of AA have even mentioned the article.

 

[fancymylotus]

Yeah but I totally forgot about it lol. As OP said none of the opponents of AA have even mentioned the article.

Except me

 

[ZedsDed]

Except me

Nice, what's your opinion? The thread is nice and toxic if you wanna dive in

 

[fancymylotus]

Nice, what's your opinion? The thread is nice and toxic if you wanna dive in

im an indian person with the letters "dr" in front of her name with parents who came to this country for professional school, take a wild guess what my opinion is



(not a fan of aa at all and trying to avoid a massive war in this thread, so im refraining from sharing my thoughts on this)

 

[SabaChampion]

I'll bite.

I don't know if you can be more hypocritical. What is stupid about my title? If you don't support something, you're an anti-whatever. So if you're against URM policy, then you're anti-URM. Difficult concept. It's true and totally necessary. I thought the article could help people like you understand the plight of URM in this country. I don't mind someone expressing a different opinion. In fact, I welcome a cogent argument (lol) because I have yet to hear one. The problem lies when people have racist (yes, racist) comments and add nothing to the conversation.

Your statement is foolish because you are assuming that affirmative action is by definition both helpful in practice and theory towards minority groups. That is the very thing that is being contested. To put it in a language you'll understand, it's like saying opposing the Republican party means you hate the middle class.

Many of us have or will have science degrees, and some argue that some races are more intelligent than others. It's frightening, really.

You clearly have spent zero time researching the matter. You can argue about whether or not race differences in IQ are meaningful, or whether we as a society should ignore these differences, but you cannot argue that they don't exist, and you cannot argue that they are due to environmental factors when they are in fact almost completely resistant to environmental factors.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty to-the-us-taxpayer
http://judgybitch.com/2013/05/20/ha...nt-be-a-topic-of-research-everybody-is-wrong/
http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858
http://www.rense.com/general79/dut.htm
https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...erences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jason-richwine-race-iq-genetics-095765
http://www.intelltheory.com/giftednessTesting.shtml
http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/race_intel.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...age_foundation_scholar_began_researching.html
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/14/is-christopher-jencks-a-racist/
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html
http://theweek.com/articles/441270/what-critics-bell-curve-wrong-about-racial-equality

Pointing out these facts does not mean one hates or wishes ill-will on certain minority groups.

What's worse is that I have yet to see one person in this thread comment on the article. Every person who is anti-URM hasn't addressed a single thing in the article. The one person who even gave the slightest hint that he/she read the article said they won't comment on it because they won't divide America. That was a real thing that was said. This means that there is not an argument to be had, and that this is in fact an excellent and informative article.

I read the article. There is nothing to address. The article, from beginning to end, rests on faulty logic by assuming that all differences in outcome are due to purely environmental factors. I know you are not interested in having an honest conversation, I just want to point out your nonsense for anyone else who may be.

im an indian person with the letters "dr" in front of her name with parents who came to this country for professional school, take a wild guess what my opinion is



(not a fan of aa at all and trying to avoid a massive war in this thread, so im refraining from sharing my thoughts on this)

Good for you, seriously.

 

[ZedsDed]

I read the article. There is nothing to address. The article, from beginning to end, rests on faulty logic by assuming that all differences in outcome are due to purely environmental factors. I know you are not interested in having an honest conversation, I just want to point out your nonsense for anyone else who may be.

And as I have said to you before, your logic is faulty because you assume differences in outcome are predominately genetic. This is far from accepted by anyone in mainstream science, even from the sources you provided.

 

[Doudline]

You clearly have spent zero time researching the matter. You can argue about whether or not race differences in IQ are meaningful, or whether we as a society should ignore these differences, but you cannot argue that they don't exist, and you cannot argue that they are due to environmental factors when they are in fact almost completely resistant to environmental factors.

Malnutrition has almost a perfect correlation with low performance on IQ test. Education is also highly correlated.
Many of the articles you quoted even claim so.

The figure I've seen thrown around everywhere -and in these articles, again- is ~40-50% heredity for intelligence. You understand that this leaves 50-60% of the variance to environmental factors, right?